That's like saying a lot of people lie on the telephone. What's better than the internet? Scholarly articles? That's not always the case depending what info you are looking for. There may have been a few journos in history that would have the balls to look into things like this, but that's likely too dangerous a proposition with how closely people are tracked and monitored nowadays. So, you get shitty sources, half of which are lies and misinformation, and, if any of these "wingnuts" became popular, they wouldn't survive long.
[–] Chiefpacman ago (edited ago)
"That's not always the case"
Yup. But it usually is, IMO. If you disagree, you can say so here.
If you want me to give more of a shit, get a degree in that field- and write a report.
[–] tcp ago
You know that the few existing quality journos or certain types of general scholars serve to piece together contemporary knowledge? The historians or related researchers may record events once the dust has settled, but even if they chose to study developing events such as an anthropologist would, the results of that research may not been seen for decades. You really don't seem to understand the nature of scholarly articles or the history of science. There are so many things that you are ignoring, but suffice it to say, the complete truth about Hillary will probably never be written about. The greatest minds in history were suppressed or even crucified. Even today, research is driven largely by financial concerns. I could go on, but it should have already been clear to you that the truth has always been suppressed and areas outside of the hard sciences are even more of a clusterfuck. Ultimately, there's not solid proof that Hilary has murdered any of her opponents, but there's probably no life insurance policy big enough for people that get close to exposing her.